Congratulations to the authors on completing such a comprehensive set of standards. It is good to see emerging best practice captured and categorized, and explained concisely. I am sure this took a good deal of analysis to figure out how to organize and explain various standards.

I don’t have much to add re content because the standards are really quite comprehensive. A few thoughts follow:

For Enteprise Development, there are four separate standards, and each has sub-sections (almost said sub-standards :-) – there is overlap between these sub-sections and I may have chosen to order differently. That doesn’t make it wrong the way that it is, but it does mean that the presentation has to be such that this is managed and all standards can be easily reviewed or cross-checked by potential users.

For example, market demand and competitiveness are such key issues for sustainability, but these are presented in the first standard. Is there room for cross-referencing?

The difference between viability and sustainability is enterprise versus market? That is how I have often seen the words used. Here the words seem to mean short/mid-term versus long-term. Again, not sure that is a problem, but it wasn’t immediately obvious to me.

I am also wondering what form these will take for presentation. As they are on the site, it was tough to go back and forth between them – I suppose I could have opened two windows.

Minor comments really – good work!